Judgment R. S. Madan, J. 1. By this judgment, I would be disposing of seventeen petitions filed under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. bearing criminal Misc. Nos.35550/m, 35552/m of 1999, 10073/m, 10075/m, 10077/m, 10823/m, 17384/m, 23130/m, 23132/m, 23134/m, 23136/m, 23138/m, 23140/m, 23142/m, 23144/m, 23146/m and 23147/m of 2000 which involve the common questions of law and fact. 2. The facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No.35550/m of 1999. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Tata chemicals Limited and is the manufacturer of famous Tata Salt. 3. The averments made in the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (in short, "the Act") are that on 4.8.1998 at 11.00 a. m. the complainant/food inspector took a sample of iodized salt by taking into possession 10 packets of Tata iodized Salt from the shop of Sanjeev Kumar (proforma respondent), situated at Sangat mandi (District Bathinda), and the prescribed sample was taken out of each packet, lebelled, wrapped in a thick paper, thereafter forwarded to the Public Analyst, Punjab, jalandhar, after complying with the prescribed procedure. 4. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was declared iodized having iodine content above 15 PPM, Diwali brand, vacuum evaporated, non-caking and containing permitted anti caking agent. Neither any adulteration, nor any element or ingredient injurious to health, were found in the said sample. However, the Public analyst opined that the contents of the sample were misbranded as far rule 32 (b)of the Rules as names of ingredients used in the product had not been mentioned on the label of the sample product. The relevant part of the report (Annexure P1), is reproduced as under:- "a sample of Tata Iodized salt Sr. No. and Code No.77950/brg/l17/98 of Local health Authority said to have been taken from on 4.8.98 for analysis, properly sealed and fastened, and that I found intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample applied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows:- Descriptions Tata Salt Packed in a polythene pack bearing the words iodized, iodine contents above 15 PPM, diwali Brand, Vacuum evaporated non caking contains permitted anti caking agent. I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows:- Descriptions Tata Salt Packed in a polythene pack bearing the words iodized, iodine contents above 15 PPM, diwali Brand, Vacuum evaporated non caking contains permitted anti caking agent. Uniform all inclusive price throughout India. A Tata product manufactured by TATA CHEMICALS limited. The company that cares, bombay House Mumbai-400001. Repacked by Vardhman Chemicals limited, 4b Parekh Mehal Church Gate mumbai in a cool dry placed. Pkd.7/97 batch No.003. Physical Appearance No insect detected. No mould growth. Free from visible contaminants and other Extraneous Adultrants. Moisture-------------2.60 percent by weight. Sodium Chloride (Nacl)----------98.76 percent by weight on dry bases: matter insoluble in water--------0.31 percent by weight on dry bases. Matter insoluble in water other than sodium chlorides 0.93 percent by weight on dry bases. Iodine------143 parts per million on dry weight bases. and am of the opinion that the contents of the sample are misbranded far Rule 32 (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as names of ingredients used in the product has not been mentioned on the label of the sample. " 5. On the basis of report (Annexure, P1)received from the Public Analyst, the Food inspector without application of mind and without considering the facts had gone beyond his jurisdiction and filed the present complaint (Annexure P2 ). It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case the managing Director of Tata Chemicals Limited was impleaded as a party to the case being manufacturer. The correspondence, annexures P3 to P7, exchanged between the tata Chemicals Limited and the Food Inspector vide which the Tata Chemicals limited shows that the Food Inspector had been informed that Dr. A. C. Bhasin is the in-charge of the business of the company. Inspite of that, the Food Inspector has not impleaded, Dr. A. C. Bhasin as a party in the complaint, who is in-charge of the manufacturing unit. However, it is averred in the complaint that the Managing Director of tata Chemicals Limited has been impleaded as party being its manufacturer. Inspite of that, the Food Inspector has not impleaded, Dr. A. C. Bhasin as a party in the complaint, who is in-charge of the manufacturing unit. However, it is averred in the complaint that the Managing Director of tata Chemicals Limited has been impleaded as party being its manufacturer. The petitioner, thus, sought the quashing of the com-plaint (Annexure P2) and the summoning order (Annexure P3) on the following grounds:- a) That the contents of the complaint, annexure P-2, read with the findings of the Public Aanalyst incorporated in his report, Annexure P-1, do not disclose the contravention of any provisions/rules of the Act and, therefore, do not disclose the commission of any offence. Even if the averments in the complaint and the opinion of the Public Analyst vide his report, Annexure p-l, are taken at their face value, no violation or offence is disclosed. b) That the opinion of the Public Analyst is to the effect that the sample was misbranded in terms of rule 32 (b) of the Act as names of the ingredients used in the product had not been mentioned on the label of the sample. The food Inspector/complainant has mechanically adopted this opinion to file the impugned complaint. c) that a reading of the report of the Public Analyst as a whole makes it sufficiently clear that the alleged violation is more illusionary than real. In the report, Annexure P-1, itself the description on the packet has been reproduced which is extracted hereinbelow for facility of reference:- "iodized, iodine contents above 15 ppm. Diwali Brand, Vacuum evaporated non caking contains permitted anti caking agent. Uniform All inclusive price throughout India. A Tata product Manufactured by tata CHEMICALS LIMITED. The company that cares, Bombay house Mumbai-400001. Repacked by Vardhman Chemicals Limited, 4b Parkash Mehal Church Gate mumbai in a cool dry place. Pkd.7/ 97 Batch No.003. " From a reading this description, the following would be abundantly clear even to a semi-literate consumer :- (a) that the product in question is iodized salt; (b) that the ingredients are salt, iodine and permitted non caking or anti caking agent; and (c) that the proportion of iodine contents is 15 PPM (particles per million ). (d) that, now, turning to the findings of the Public Analyst, it may be noticed that he did not, find any insect, mould growth or visible contaminants or other extraneous adultrants. (d) that, now, turning to the findings of the Public Analyst, it may be noticed that he did not, find any insect, mould growth or visible contaminants or other extraneous adultrants. Taking notice of the proportion of various ingredients, the Public Analyst opines in the following terms:- "and am of the opinion that the contents of the sample are misbranded far rule 32 (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as names of ingredients used in the product has not been mentioned on the label of the sample. " (e) that the report is a contradiction in terms and is, apparently, unsustainable because it is an attempt to deny the obvious. The reference to the three ingredients; namely, salt, iodine contents and permitted anti caking agent, is loud and clear. The proportion of iodine is fairly above the minimum prescribed. It is, thus, humbly submitted that the report does not reveal any contravention of the rules in general or rule 32 (b) of the Rules made under the Act, in particular. Rather, the factual findings of the public Analyst show complete compliance with the requirements of law. (f) that the complainant mechanically acted upon the report of the public Analyst, which on the slightest scrutiny would reveal the commission of offence. The complainant permitted the Public Analyst to usurp his functions. The complainant/food Inspector is required under the law to examine the factual findings of the Public Analyst and, then conclude as to whether the same reveal any violation of the act amounting to commission of an offence or not. The inference that the label is not in terms of the rules or Rule 32 (b) in particular, falls within the domain of the complainant. It is well settled that the class of violation highlighted in the complaint do not depend on the analysis of the Public Analyst and his findings. (g) that the offence of misbranding is defined in clause (ix) of Sec.2 of the Act. The said sub-section in question deals with as many as 11 types of misbranding. It is well settled that the class of violation highlighted in the complaint do not depend on the analysis of the Public Analyst and his findings. (g) that the offence of misbranding is defined in clause (ix) of Sec.2 of the Act. The said sub-section in question deals with as many as 11 types of misbranding. Sub-clauses (f), (g) and (k) are reproduced hereinbefore appropriate appreciation of the issue involved:- (f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act; (g) if the package containing it, or label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder. " (h) that the offence of misbranding in sum and substance refers to a situation where an attempt is made to mislead the consumer by selling an imitation or substitute or an inferior product. Sub-Clause (f)deals with the failure to mention the name and address of the manufacture and the contents conspicuously and correctly. Similarly sub-clause (g) refers to information which is false or misleading. Sub-clause (k) deals with a labelling in contravention of the Act or Rules. As submitted hereinbefore, the case in hand does not attract the mischief of misbranding under any of the sub-clauses of sub-sec. 2 (ix) of the Act. i) that Rule 32 finds its place in part vii of the Rules. This part is titled as packing and Labelling of foods. Rule 32 (b) requires a package to specify the names of the ingredients in descending order of their composition by weight. The proviso and sub-clauses (i) and (ii)of the rule in question further proceed to prescribe the form in which the ingredients are to be referred to. This part is titled as packing and Labelling of foods. Rule 32 (b) requires a package to specify the names of the ingredients in descending order of their composition by weight. The proviso and sub-clauses (i) and (ii)of the rule in question further proceed to prescribe the form in which the ingredients are to be referred to. The reading of rule 32 (b) as a whole shows that the information printed on the package must communicate all that is necessary for the consumer to know before buying the product; there should be no misleading information; nor should there be any concealment. Sub-clause (ii) specifically deals with Food additives and further highlights that it would be sufficient to mention the expression anti caking agent. 6. In the reply filed by Dr. Charanjit Garg on behalf of respondent no.1979 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration journal 361, it is submit-ted that as per the report of the public analyst the sample was misbranded in contravention of Rule 32 (b) of the Act, therefore, all the petitions need to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Criminal Misc. Nos.35550/ m, 35552/m of 1999, 10073/m, 10075/m, 10077/m, 10823/m and 17384/m of 2000, the complainant has impleaded the vendor, dealer and manufacturer. In Criminal Misc. Nos.23130/m, 23132/m, 23134/m,.23136/m, 23138/m, 23140/m and 23144/m of 2000, the complainant has impleaded only the company as party. In Criminal Misc. Nos.23142/ m, 23146/m and 23147/m of 2000 the complainant has impleaded Mr. A. C. Bhasin as party to the complaint but he has been impleaded only as nominee of the company, and not as in-charge and responsible, inspite of the fact that Tata Chemicals Limited had informed the Food Inspector that Mr. A. C. Bhasin is the in-charge of the manufacturing unit. He further contended that sample was declared iodized having iodine contents above 15 PPM, Diwali Brand, vacuum evaporated, non-caking containing permitted anti caking agent. Neither any adulteration, nor any element or ingredient injurious to health, were found in the said sample. The opinion of the Public Analyst that the contents of the sample were misbranded as far Rule 32 (b) of the Act as names of ingredients used in the product had not been mentioned on the label of the sample product, is a technical defect. The opinion of the Public Analyst that the contents of the sample were misbranded as far Rule 32 (b) of the Act as names of ingredients used in the product had not been mentioned on the label of the sample product, is a technical defect. In this regard, he referred to Dwarka Nath and another V/s. The municipal Corporation of Delhi 1979 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration journal 361, wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Rule 32 (b) of the Act is valid but its technical breach does not call for any punishment and rule 32 (e) of the Act ultra vires as being beyond the rule making powers of Central government. He also referred to M/s. Lipton India Limited V/s. The State of himachal Pradesh. In that case, the batch number on the label of 250 grams packet ot tea was not mentioned but the sample was found in accordance with rules. The court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued summons to the accused which were challenged before the Hon ble Himachal pradesh High Court pleading, inter-alia, that the provisions of Rule 32 (e) of the Act are ultra vires the powers of Central Government and due to the invalidity of the rule, no offence is committed and the complaint filed by the Food Inspector deserves to be quashed. The proceeding in that case, under the same circumstances, were quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High court after relying Dwarka Naths case (supra ). 8. Learned counsel also referred to Om parkash V/s. State of Punjab (Pandf), wherein this High Court has quashed the FIR while observing that Report of Analyst that package was misbranded as it was not labelled in accordance with Rule 32 and Rule 32 already declared ultra vires. In Vinod Kumar v: State of Punjab and M. P. Singh V/s. State of Punjab and others, also this High Court after relying upon Dwarka Naths case (supra) quashed the proceedings and held that package of food article manufactured by known company with month of manufacturer not mentioned and as per report of public analyst, the sample was misbranded under Rule 32 (a), but the same was not adulterated, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of Sec.19 (2) (a) (ii) and (b) of the Act. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that cognizance could not be taken against the petitioner because he was not nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act to be in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business and if he was not nominated then also it has to be shown that he was in-charge and responsible to the company. In the instant case, M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited has informed the Food Inspector vide letters annexures P3 to P7, that Dr. A. C. Bhasin, is the in-charge and responsible of the company for the conduct of the business. Inspite of that, the complainant impleaded the managing Director as party which is against sec. 17 of the Act. Sec.17 of the Act which deals with the offences by the company is as under:- "17. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company- (a) (i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company (hereinafter in this section referred to as the person responsible), or (ii) where no person has been so nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and (b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Any company may, by order in writing, authorize any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this Act and may give notice to the Local (Health) Authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or manager as the person responsible, along with the written consent of such director or manager for being so nominated. Explanation.-Where a company has different establishments or branches of different units in any establishment or branch, different persons may be nominated under this sub-section in relation to different establishments or branches or units and the person nominated in relation to any establishment, branch or unit shall be deemed to be the person responsible in respect of such establishment, branch or unit. (3) The person nominated under sub-section (2) shall, until- (i) further notice cancelling such nomination is received from the company by the Local (Health) Authority; or (ii) he ceases to be a director or, as the case may be; manager of the company; or (iii) he makes a request in writing to the local (Health) Authority, under intimation to the company, to cancel the nomination [which request shall be complied with by the Local (Health) Authority], whichever is the earliest, continue to be the person responsible; provided that where such person ceases to be a director or, as the case may be, manager of the company, he shall intimate the fact of such cesser to the Local (Health) Authority; provided further that where such person makes a request under clause (iii), the Local (Health) Authority shall not cancel such nomination with effect from a date earlier than the date on which the request is made. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, [not being a person nominated under sub-section (2)| such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section- (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; (b) "director" in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm; and (c) "manager", in relation to a company engaged in hotel industry, includes the person in charge of the catering department of any hotel managed or run by it. 10. It is clear from the above provisions of the Act that if an offence has been committed by a company that person will be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished, who has been nominated to be in-charge and responsible to the conduct of the business of the company and if no person has been nominated, even then every person, who was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Admittedly, Dr. A. C. Bhasin who was the in-charge and responsible to the conduct of the business of the company was not impleaded as party to the complaint. In support of his arguments, learned counsel referred to K. Sunitha V/s. State of Rajasthan wherein it was held that, "cognizance of offence should not be taken against a person unless it is shown that he was nominated under Sec.17 (2) of Prevention of Food adulteration Act as in-charge and responsible for conduct of business of company. No presumption can be drawn merely on basis of list of directors filed by Asst. Commercial taxation Officer that petitioner was either nominated or de facto in-charge of and responsible to company for conduct of business. " 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that by giving his opinion, the Public Analyst has gone beyond his jurisdiction. No presumption can be drawn merely on basis of list of directors filed by Asst. Commercial taxation Officer that petitioner was either nominated or de facto in-charge of and responsible to company for conduct of business. " 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that by giving his opinion, the Public Analyst has gone beyond his jurisdiction. However, in the report, he nowhere has suggested that any adulteration in the sample was detected or the article packed was unfit for human consumption. Admittedly, the sample was declared iodized and neither adulteration nor any element or ingredient injurious to health, were found in the said sample. The Public Analyst cannot give his opinion regarding the contents of the label as he was only to report whether the sample is/was adulterated or the same is/was as per prescribed standard. Therefore, the proceedings based on his report deserve to be quashed. In this regard, he referred to Messrs Gopi Nath and sons V/s. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another wherein it was held as under:- "in fact, I may say so, it was for the food Inspector at the time of taking the sample to detect if the container out of which the sample was sold had a label containing the name of business address of the manufacturer or other particulars prescribed under the rules and it was not for the Public Analyst to whom some of the contents of the container were sent and from whom the container as also the label had been withheld, to express any opinion regarding the contents of the label. " 12. On the other hand, learned Assistant advocate General submitted that even the violation of Rule 32 (a) of the Rules is punishable. This rule was introduced with an object that the person purchasing the commodity must know the contents of each ingredient i. e. its weight, quantity, month of manufacturing and expiry date. He further contended that these particulars should be mentioned on the package so that the public or purchaser are able to find out the date of packing of the material being purchased and comes to know if it is fresh or not. 13. The petitions in which Mr. A. C. Bhasin and the Managing Director of the company have been arrayed as party to the complaints, nowhere disclose them to be the in-charge of the business. 13. The petitions in which Mr. A. C. Bhasin and the Managing Director of the company have been arrayed as party to the complaints, nowhere disclose them to be the in-charge of the business. The correspondence exchanged between the Tata chemicals and the Health Authorities reflects that the Health Authorities have been raising objections with respect to the nomination of Mr. A. C. Bhasin. It was suggested by the complainant that Mr. A. C. Bhasin cannot be accepted as nominee of the company till his particulars duly entered in Form VIII of Rule 12b of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, and also a certified copy of resolution as is provided in the Act have not been provided. However, the requisite information was furnished to the Food inspector vide letter, Annexure P6. Despite this, in all the complaints filed by the Food Inspector neither the Managing Director nor the nominee of the company has been sued as the in-charge of the manufacturing unit of the company. Therefore, no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner being violative of Sec.17 of the Act. 14. It is not disputed that the sample was declared iodized having iodine contents above 15 PPM, Diwali Brand, vacuum evaporated, no caking and containing permitted anti caking agent. Neither any adulteration, nor any element or ingredient injurious to health, were found in the said sample. In the instant case, the sample seized was carrying year, month of packing with batch number, name and address of the company and was not misbranded. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in various judicial pronouncements, all the petitions mentioned above are accepted. Consequently, the complaints and proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. Proceedings quashed.